Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561, United States.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561, United States.
Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Dec 20;50(24):13195-13205. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03220. Epub 2016 Dec 8.
Rule-based weight of evidence approaches to ecological risk assessment may not account for uncertainties and generally lack probabilistic integration of lines of evidence. Bayesian networks allow causal inferences to be made from evidence by including causal knowledge about the problem, using this knowledge with probabilistic calculus to combine multiple lines of evidence, and minimizing biases in predicting or diagnosing causal relationships. Too often, sources of uncertainty in conventional weight of evidence approaches are ignored that can be accounted for with Bayesian networks. Specifying and propagating uncertainties improve the ability of models to incorporate strength of the evidence in the risk management phase of an assessment. Probabilistic inference from a Bayesian network allows evaluation of changes in uncertainty for variables from the evidence. The network structure and probabilistic framework of a Bayesian approach provide advantages over qualitative approaches in weight of evidence for capturing the impacts of multiple sources of quantifiable uncertainty on predictions of ecological risk. Bayesian networks can facilitate the development of evidence-based policy under conditions of uncertainty by incorporating analytical inaccuracies or the implications of imperfect information, structuring and communicating causal issues through qualitative directed graph formulations, and quantitatively comparing the causal power of multiple stressors on valued ecological resources. These aspects are demonstrated through hypothetical problem scenarios that explore some major benefits of using Bayesian networks for reasoning and making inferences in evidence-based policy.
基于规则的证据权重方法在进行生态风险评估时可能无法考虑不确定性,并且通常缺乏对证据的概率综合。贝叶斯网络通过包括有关问题的因果知识,利用概率演算将多个证据线索结合起来,并最小化预测或诊断因果关系时的偏差,从而可以从证据中做出因果推断。在传统的证据权重方法中,经常忽略了可以用贝叶斯网络来解释的不确定性来源。指定和传播不确定性可以提高模型在评估的风险管理阶段将证据强度纳入其中的能力。从贝叶斯网络进行概率推断可以评估证据中变量的不确定性变化。贝叶斯方法的网络结构和概率框架在捕捉多个可量化不确定性源对生态风险预测的影响方面,相对于证据权重的定性方法具有优势。贝叶斯网络可以通过纳入分析不准确性或不完善信息的影响、通过定性有向图公式构建和传达因果问题、以及定量比较多个胁迫因素对有价值生态资源的因果作用,在不确定条件下促进基于证据的政策的制定。这些方面通过探索使用贝叶斯网络进行基于证据的政策中的推理和推断的一些主要好处的假设问题场景得到了展示。